Signature March/April 2015 - 26

managing editor of a number of journals reports that the conversion rate of
reviewer invitations to acceptances has
dropped by at least five percent over the
past five years. Once reviewers have been
recruited, editors are keen to find ways to
better reward reviewers they trust, who
deliver on time, and who produce high
quality work. In summary, the issue is
threefold:
n■ A need to increase the reviewer pool
n■ A need to ensure reviewers in that
pool are well trained, trustworthy,
and produce good quality reviews
n■ A need to find ways to reward reviewers to recognize their work and
maintain motivation
The aim of this survey was to take a
current temperature check of reviewer
experience and a deeper dive into the
recognition and training needs of reviewers, and also look more closely at
how reviewing behavior and motivations
change according to experience, career
stage, and region.

REVIEWER MOTIVATION
A considerable amount of researcher
time is spent reviewing journal articles.
What are the motivations for spending
such a large amount of time reviewing?
The survey results confirm that reviewers
choose to review because it allows them
to actively participate in the research
community, and they feel it is important to reciprocate the peer review that
they themselves receive. Other reasons
include:
n■ Prestige and reputation of the journal
n■ Personal relationship/networking
opportunity with the requesting
editor
n■ Reviewer acknowledgement in the
journal (to develop personal reputation)
n■ Feedback provided by the journal
post-review
n■ Reviewer benefits/rewards offered
by the journal
n■ Credit/accreditation awarded for
review activity
n■ Reviewer credit awarded on a thirdparty website
26

MARCH/APRIL 2016

signature

SURVEY RESPONSE DEMOGRAPHICS
Country representation. Authors residing in the USA comprised nearly
14 percent of total responses, followed by China (11%), Italy (8 %), Spain
(6%), and the UK (5%).
n■ Market representation. Authors residing in emerging markets comprised 5 percent of total responses, high-growth markets (20%), and
mature markets (28%).
n■ Discipline representation. Authors representing the life sciences comprised 30% of total responses, followed by health sciences (27%), physical sciences (26%), and social sciences, and humanities (17%).
n■ Primary place of work. Nearly 60% of respondents listed university or
college as their primary place of work, followed by research institution
(19%), and hospital/healthcare institution (10%).
n■ Age of respondent. The majority of survey respondents (63%) were
between 31 and 50 years of age.
n■

SOURCE: WILEY, JULY 2015

Peer reviewing improves writing
skills
n■ Increases the likelihood of future
papers being accepted
Interestingly, survey respondents said
that the prestige and reputation of the
journal is the most influential factor on
the time spent on a review and their commitment to meeting review deadlines.
The personal relationship and opportunity to network with the editor is ranked
second. This suggests that while reviewers choose to review to give back to the
community, there is also more perceived
benefit in interacting with the community
of a top-ranking journal than a low-ranking one. Clearly, there are some reputation management and career progresn■

of journal article
reviewers show an
interest in receiving
further reviewer
training.

sion factors involved here for association
journal publishers to consider.

REVIEWER TRAINING
So, why is there an apparent imbalance
in reviewing versus authoring effort? Is
there an issue around editorial trust and
confidence in the reviewing standards of
emerging and high-growth market researchers? Is it more difficult for editors
from international journals to find reviewers from, for example, China, because
they do not know where to look? Or are
there generally fewer experienced/skilled
reviewers in these areas? Could training
support help attract more reviewers from
these areas to the pool, provide evidence
of reviewing skill, and possibly help alleviate the pressure elsewhere? What type
of training do reviewers receive?
It has frequently been asserted that
there is a lack of guidance about how to
perform a good review, and reviewers
are expected to learn on the job. This is
borne out in the responses to the survey
about the types of training that reviewers
have received.
The most common type of peer-review training received by all respondents
to date has come either in the form of
guidelines - for example a journal's
instructions for reviewers (32 percent),

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Signature March/April 2015